Fallacies of Evolution

Posters like the above make me want to do this.

 

I guess you don't know Dr. Schoph's first name.

In any event, you still have not put forth an all inclusive definition of life. Maybe you can look it up in Dr. Schop's book.

 

Oh, I found him. He was interviewed for this article (my emphases)

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/s...at-hasnt-evolved-in-more-than-2-billion-years

Stuart Wolpert | February 02, 2015
published online today by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The scientists examined sulfur bacteria, microorganisms that are too small to see with the unaided eye, that are 1.8 billion years old and were preserved in rocks from Western Australia’s coastal waters. Using cutting-edge technology, they found that the bacteria look the same as bacteria of the same region from 2.3 billion years ago — and that both sets of ancient bacteria are indistinguishable from modern sulfur bacteria found in mud off of the coast of Chile.

“It seems astounding that life has not evolved for more than 2 billion years — nearly half the history of the Earth,” said J. William Schopf, a UCLA professor of earth, planetary and space sciences in the UCLA College who was the study’s lead author. “Given that evolution is a fact, this lack of evolution needs to be explained.”

Charles Darwin’s writings on evolution focused much more on species that had changed over time than on those that hadn’t. So how do scientists explain a species living for so long without evolving?

UCLA professor J. William Schopf pioneered the techniques used to analyze microscopic fossils preserved inside ancient rocks.
“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.

“These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,” he said. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”

Schopf said the findings therefore provide further scientific proof for Darwin’s work. “It fits perfectly with his ideas,” he said.​

It sure sounds like he believes in the ToE.

 

What is your point? Did I claim he does not believe in TOE? I Suppose if one believes in climate change, one believes the conditions changed. Why divert from my request to read his book?

I bought it when it when it came out. All I asked you do do is use that bacterium and modify it to a bit more advanced life.

Give it a shot and let us know how it works out. You are a respected scientist, aren't you?

 

I guess you are wrong. Read the book. It might help make you smart.

 

I have stated my position many times, in this thread. I'm sure you've read it before, so i don't know why you & ecco keep banging this drum, as if it provides evidence for your theory.

I am an origins agnostic. 'I don't know', HOW we came about. I don't know what mechanism originated man, or any other life forms. I am a theist, so i already BELIEVE in a supernatural entity, that is able to create life. So my BELIEF is that of supernatural creation, but HOW the Creator did this remains a mystery. If it can be shown, via some scientifically evidenced process, i would be all over it. IF the ToE had any validity, i would lean toward it, as many other theists do. But it does not work, scientifically, & has too many major flaws, from a scientific perspective. It is fine as a belief system, to support a naturalistic view of origins, but as a scientific process, it has nothing to make it credible.

 

Not specifically. You mocked people who believe in ToE and then referenced his book

Actually, you didn't. You just said you read it.

Since you read his book...Why do you still disbelieve ToE?
-or-
If you believe ToE why do you make disparaging comments about other people who believe ToE?

What do you think you gain by making nonsensical requests and snarky comments.

 

My reading the book will not help you respond to my request to put forth an all inclusive definition of life. You had stated that ... the earliest possible life is the single cell. There are people who would disagree with you. That's why I asked for your definition.

 

So, would it be OK to refer to you as an Agnostic Creationist?

I'm sure you would. There is, however, NO "scientifically evidenced process" that supports Creationism. NONE!

The many theists who "lean toward" Evolution do so because they have moved beyond a literal interpretation of Genesis in particular and, therefore, in Creationism in general.

Thousands of scientists, including many theists from all religions, in many different scientific disciplines, have provided evidence for over 100 years in support of the basic tenets of Evolution. You choose to argue against it.

You choose to give equal weight to:
A concept that has virtually no support from scientists and a theory that has overwhelming support from scientists.

 

they,

Chimpanzees are not monkeys.

 

I hope you aren't roping in my reply in post #1010. I'm just asking some clarifying questions to clear up some things that seem inconsistent in what you've posted. Care to elaborate on what I asked?

 

Every species is "intermediate" or "transitional". Modern humans are "transitional". Over the last 20,000 years, we've evolved to acquire the ability to digest milk as adults, to have blue eyes, to have less brain volume by about the size of a tennis ball.

We are not static, nor were we ever static, nor was any other life form static.

Your question just boils down to the fact that not every life form has left fossil evidence that we've managed to find.

However, what we do find fits within the constraints specified by evolution - and NOT by any other theory. The ToE has been phenomenal in predicting what we will find when we look.

I cited evidence. In the last 20,000 years humans became capable of digesting milk as adults, acquired blue eyes, and had our brains shrink by the volume of a tennis ball.

We have older forebears who had other characteristics that we no longer have.

That is transition.

The point here is that evolution in humans has not stopped. Humans were never "chosen" as a final product.

We're no more than what evolution has created SO FAR.

 

Thank you town crier.

 

They don't like to be challenged. Scientists don't mind so much.

 

Somehow, I doubt very much you are interested in my definition of life. And if you got butt hurt over TOE, that was not my intention either. If you saw snark, that also is not my intention.

I find as a rule on topics like this the questions I get asked are asked to try to make it seem I know nothing on the topic. I notice how you and US are doing in your arguments.

I offered the book in an effort to assist you in knowing much more about the topic is all. If you don't wish to learn more, I won't worry a bit.

 

What are you trying to solve in this discussion? Is anybody saying TOE is invalid? Abiogenesis is far more interesting to me. Change is quite normal. Our children reflect a bit of change that we all can see.

 

You asserted that something you were referring to was the earliest example of life. I pointed out that many people have tried to define "life". So, yes, I am interested in your definition.

At this point I have no way of knowing what you "know" or what you believe on the subject of ToE or what the point of your argument is. On the one hand you make a post seemingly disparaging believers in ToE and then
link to a book that endorses ToE.

So states someone who also stated: "If you saw snark, that also is not my intention.".

 

If "Abiogenesis is far more interesting to" you, then I would think that your belief - view - concept - definition of Life is of the utmost importance.

 

Ecco, I would enjoy seeing your personal definition of life.
I would appreciate your cutting out your snark. Thanks.

 

Why would you expect me to respond to the same question you have refused to address?

My snark? Really? I suppose you believe your comments are just examples of polite conversation.

 

Yes, the "line of humans" has been around for a long time. But, there is clear evidence of change as humans evolved from earlier species - AND as humans continue to evolve (as evidenced by the genetic changes I pointed out).

Assuming that evolution has stopped is what is ridiculous. There is no reason to believe that evolution of human beings (or ANY other life form) has stopped.

 

How can you be an origins agnostic and then profess belief in supernatural creation. That would appear to be contradictory unless of course I am missing some type of intellectusl quibble.

 

Yes.

USFAN is suggesting the ToE is false.

I agree that abiogenesis is more interesting. Though we've made a lot of progress on that, I would have to say that it is still in the "I don't know" bucket - the things we haven't totally figured out yet.

As for this thread, it seems to me that the only argument for a magical solution is that of odds. What are the odds of life forming WITHOUT magic? That's the central argument of ID advocates.

But, the number of planets (and appropriate moons?) in the universe multiplied by the age of the universe provides an amount of "lab time" that is seriously difficult to contemplate.

So, to me it seems totally rational to accept a non-magic solution - even if we don't know exactly how it happened on earth. And, a non-magic solution is ALWAYS superior.

 

The magic in my estimation would be that at one point in "time" since it then did not exist, is that nothing at all somehow became everywthing we know of today. Does not mean it was an instant, but consider the big bang. A cause of that is not known. To accept the idea that nothing is behind this makes no sense to me.

If you woke up and a new car was in your garage, would you accept the premise nothing caused it? Or would you think an intelligence was working?

US Fan is accurately pointing to gaps or flaws in TOE. I personally accept evolution but perhaps not the way you accept it. We can each accept TOE without accepting a particular way it works.

 

The term supernatural creation does not mean there is no GOD.

Super is on a higher order than ordinary. Natural implies an order exists. We have so many galaxies one has to admit that they vary by enormous magnitudes of order and are widely spaced, shown by Hubbel for one thing, yet were this just accidental, one might expect, given the homogeneity of the "big bang" that as a shotgun blast shoots the same size pellets away for the gun, the universe would be rather homogenous. But a Creator by definition can of course create a wide variety of stars, planets and even life.